How good are PS3 graphics considered?

Actually you don't have to constantly upgrade your PC, just build a uber PC right away and you'll be fine for the next coming years. Hell even my old 2.6GHZ pentium 4 with a X800XT played games very well up until now and that computer was over 5 years old. So don't come and speak that you have to constantly upgrade the PC to keep up with console graphics

What's so special about Motostorm, that glossy looking terrain is nothing new and don't make the games look so good. Glossiness has been on the PC for what 2-3 years now? I think they are over using glossiness nowadays. Ah man so fun to debate

No I'm not kidding the A64 3000+ would kick those CPU's ass in gaming, that's what the article said not literally but you understand. Anyway I dont' say the games looks bad on the PS3, but it's nothing new to me in terms of graphics.

Here is a similiar article http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=1

A quote from that page

"Both the 360 and PS3’s CPUs are heavily stripped down compared to what most of us are probably using on our desktop computers to view this article. Both consoles are labeled as 3.2GHZ, but they don’t offer performance comparable to that of a typical Athlon 64 3200+ or better than even an Athlon XP 2800+ CPU. The CPUs inside the Xbox 360 and PS3 are “In-Order Execution” CPUs with narrow execution cores, whereas what we use on our computers are classified as “Out-of-Order Execution” CPUs with wider execution cores.

The reason they can sell for so cheap is because they are not as robust or complex as what we have inside our computers. The execution theme in both the 360 and PS3’s CPUs is similar to that of what you would see in the original Intel Pentium Processor. (Not referring to the Pentium 2 3 or 4, but the original) This is because they’ve stripped out hardware designed to optimize the scheduling of instructions at runtime. As a result, neither the 360 nor PS3’s CPU contain an instruction window. Instead, instructions pass through the processor in the order in which they were fetched; hence both are “In-Order Execution” CPUs.

Marketing talk from Microsoft and Sony: Thanks to these multi-core processors developers will be able to multi-thread their games and get significant performance improvements and achieve Artificial Intelligence in games that people previously thought impossible for a videogame. It’ll be as if you’re playing with another living breathing human being"

 

whatever, thats still BS, of course a single core A64 will beat the 360 and ps3's cpu's in pc related tasks because thats what it was designed for. The 360 and ps3's cpus were designed strictly for gaming and work very different then a cpu in a pc as stated in your article.

as for upgrading, you can upgrade at whatever speed you want but if your going to play the latest titles at 1600x1200 4xAA then you will have to fork $400+ (or more) for a new graphics card every year, the same price as a console.

 

While I do think the Xenon and Cell CPUs are very powerful, I think they have been overhyped of course. Still one must consider at least with the Xenon, that many games that initially came out were operating on a single core out of the three available. Taking into fact that some of those games were still had large scale orchestration and physics engines, that's impressive. IMHO I think a fare comparison in terms of gaming performance (I SAID GAMING PERFORMANCE, NOT NORMAL PC TASKS), I think the Xenon is at least equal to an Athlon X2 5000, probably even more powerful. Had MS not utilized a high scale CPU, then many of the games on the system would be immediately hampered, as many games such as FEAR, and Oblivion which require a 1.7 GHz Pentium 4 or AMD equivalent to run, still are recommended to run on a Pentium 4 3.0 GHz or Athlon 64 3000.

I'm not even going to delve into Cell.

At least on the graphics side, the 360 possesses a very robust GPU setup as compared to the PS3 with it's stripped down G70 core (same as GeForce 7800). I'm very impressed by the Xenos GPU in the 360, with it's highly scalable and flexible unified shader architecture. Honestly IMHO, if the 360 had more RAM, it could run a faithful console port of Crysis, at least on par with the game running on 7-series GPUs in DX9.0c.

And that's another thing: 256 or 512 MB more of total RAM in either system would've been very beneficial. Cheap people at Sony and MS :\ At least the 360's RAM set up is more geared towards actual gaming, where there are no memory pool seperations (PS3 has 256 MB of dedicated XDR VRAM, and another 256 MB of GDDR3 SRAM) as well as direct connection to the RAM for the graphics processor.

I could go quite deeply into why I think the 360 is a much better gaming machine than the PS3, but at least the PS3 hasn't had all these manufacturing defects. Fortunately, my 360 hasn't caused me a single problem so far.

 

That's bull that you have to upgrade your GPU every year. Funny how people thinks that the PS3 is so good, it's just a piece of overhyped hardware that's all. Of course a unified shader GPU beats a non unifier shader GPU. That's the weak spot of the PS3, still the PS3 is a nice piecec of hardware, I would never though sell my 360 for a PS3. The PS3 feels just outdated by now.

 

Makes one wonder if the next XBox perhaps should have a simpler setup of (for example) 1 Core 2 Extreme (the 45nm version we'll get later in 07 whatever Intel calls it) and a G80 based GPU. Use the saved nomey (as this is surely cheaper than Xenon) to have HD-DVD and larger, SATA 2 HDDs.

It would probably cost a little less than current, and it would blow every console (including the 360 and PS3) out of the water.

 

At the moment Xbox 360 > PS3 > PC but soon it will be PC > Xbox 360 > PS3

 

thumbandit, no this is what it is at the moment and always has been PC > Consoles. But better up guys in spite the 360 has got a better GPU the graphics will still be similiar. A CPU can't do much unless the GPU is something special and the only special GPU sits in the Xbox360 but it's nothing to write home about, the PS3 GPU those kind of graphics can already be seen on the PC, there's nothing special the RSX in the PS3 can do that a regular 7800GTX can't do.